A proposal to require political protesters to get a permit to use Boulder parks is getting a second look from city officials after the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board unanimously voiced its lack of support for the idea.

The city attorney's office and the parks and recreation department had put together a draft ordinance requiring protest permits for groups larger than 25 outside of what the ordinance called "designated advocacy areas."

Boulder's elected leaders asked staffers to look into the idea when City Manager Jane Brautigam proposed closing parks at night in response to the Occupy Boulder encampment. With the City Council's support, Brautigam authorized the nighttime closure rule, and an Occupy camp in front of the municipal building was disbanded early this year.

"The idea was that, when this all calms down, we ought to have a policy," City Attorney Tom Carr said.

As originally drafted, the ordinance designates several "advocacy areas," most of them in central Boulder near the creek. They include the Sister Cities Plaza by the municipal building, the lawn of the municipal building and Central Park.

Groups of fewer than 25 people could engage in demonstrations or protests in those areas without a permit -- provided no other group already had a permit for that location.

Larger groups could apply for a permit from the city manager's office.

Advertisement

Permits would have to be requested five days in advance, and there would be a process to appeal a denial. Consideration of permit requests would be "content-neutral." There would be no fee for a permit, but city officials could require a damage deposit for larger groups.

There also would be an "advocacy adjunct" permit to set up stands, tents or booths on park property.

"The idea was that people should be able to protest without a permit unless they were going to have an impact on park property or other people," Carr said. "It doesn't interfere with First Amendment rights but also allows for other groups to use facilities."

But when the ordinance was presented for review to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Monday, members raised serious concerns, starting with whether the ordinance was necessary at all.

"Several members of PRAB struggled a bit with what problem we were trying to solve, considering the fact that the parks closure rule already is in place," said Bob Yates, the board's chairman.

There also were concerns about how protesters were supposed to know how many people would show up for a demonstration, and especially about the requirement that applications be made five days in advance to an office that is only open during business hours Monday through Friday.

"Oftentimes, a protest or a demonstration is in response to a very current event," Yates said. "Something happens, and people want to go protest the next day or day after. We were concerned it might have the unintentional consequence of chilling free speech."

The parks board unanimously adopted a motion expressing "non-support" for the ordinance as written. Yates said board members could see the benefit of requiring some sort of notice for larger protests in order to have extra police on hand for safety reasons, but they thought the ordinance went too far.

"Assuming for the sake of argument that there is a problem we need to solve, I think the ordinance can be repaired," Yates said.

Judd Golden of the Boulder County American Civil Liberties Union chapter said the courts have agreed that government can place reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on demonstrations, but the ordinance as proposed is not reasonable.

"The idea of a five-day notice is not reasonable," he said. "First Amendment activity is often spontaneous. If some major event occurs, and people want to get together to have a vigil, that is unreasonable to restrict that. That is not a reasonable time, place and manner restriction."

Golden pointed to the protests in response to President Barack Obama's visit to Boulder earlier this week. Protesters would not have had time to seek a permit if a five-day requirement was in place.

The local ACLU chapter has worked with city officials before to develop regulations on political activity for the Pearl Street Mall that were acceptable to both sides, Golden said. He said the city shouldn't overreact to concerns raised by the Occupy encampment.

"The city is progressively moving in directions that are unreasonably restricting First Amendment activity because of a handful of excesses by very few," he said. "Restricting the First Amendment freedoms of everyone because of the misdeeds of a few is very bad public policy."

The ordinance was to have gone to the City Council on May 15 for a first reading, but Carr said officials will be discussing whether it should be rewritten to address some of the concerns.

Yates said he hopes city officials take the parks board's reaction seriously.

"We're the parks board, not free speech specialists, but we are supposed to represent the community," he said. "If seven of us come together without any prior discussion and have the same reaction, we think that might be indicative of the community reaction."

New coordinator pushes Buffs to work, play at level he expectsJim Leavitt has discovered this much about his new defense at Colorado: He has some talent with which to work, but his players need to put it in another gear. Full Story